M4s & Shermans

[JaM2013]

you are right, i made a mistake, it should be (45@60) then @30

[JagdpanzerIV]

you are right, i made a mistake, it should be (45@60) then @30

ok, no problem!

so, using this method i get;
T-34
F 45@60 = 90@30 = 104
S 40@40 = 52,2@60 = 104,4 x 2 = 209
Total (104 + 209) / 3 = 104,33
GD = 104,33 x 1.3 / 10 = 14
GD 14

Tiger 1
F 100@10 = 101,5@30 = 117,25
S 80@60 = 160 x 2 = 320
Total (117,25 + 320) / 3 = 145,8
GD = 145,8 x 1.3 / 10 = 19
GD 19

Tiger 2
F 150@50 = 233,4@30 =269,5
S 80@25 = 88,3@60 = 176,5 x 2 = 353
Total (269,5 + 353) / 3 = 207,5
GD = 207,5 x 1.3 / 10 = 27
GD 27

1.3 is a multiplier i took to match (or try to) GD in the game

is this correct ?

[wargovichr]

Thats actually a myth. they didnt called them Ronsons.. (37:40) Shermans were actually one of the most survivable tanks out there, especially with introduction of Wet Stowage for ammunition. in 90% of hits, it was the ammo that caused tank to burn, not the fuel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY&t=2418s


and btw, there were about 48000 US tankers deployed overseas in WW2, 1400 of them got killed... US Army lost 4600 medium and 1500 light tanks together... do your math, survivability of US tanks during WW2 was quite good actually... (0.23 killed per destroyed tank!!!!)

What I wrote is true. Of course the ammo was the main contributor to an explosion when any tank is hit. Burning petrol caused a tank to "brew up" more than diesel. "Tommycookers," "Ronson's," "Burning Grave."

[wargovichr]

Called "Tommy cookers" by the Germans, and "Ronson lighters" by US/Brit crews for the resulting gasoline fireball when hit by enemy action.

what's the point anyways of writing this ?

1) Historical interest
2) Relief from pages of boring data
3) Actual Sherman battle deficiencies
4) Gallows humor
5) Terrible performance compared to tank destroyers in Panzer Corps US Corps DLCs

[JaM2013]

then why dont you just watch that video, to learn new things... Ronson lighters couldnt be a name for Sherman, because that slogan came much later.. plus, as stated many times, Sherman was one of the most survivable tanks of the WW2.. chance to get killed was 3x bigger in T34/85 than in the Sherman... (1.8tanker killed per destroyed tank vs 0.6 for Sherman in 1944.)

Besides, tanks did not got burned because of fuel, but because of ammo explosion... (Germans also used gasoline btw..) ammo was laying around in T34 turret freely, while ammo racks were on sides, so any penetrating hit there resulted in burned up T34... Sherman was the only tank with Wet Stowages for ammo, which greatly reduced chance of ammo explosions. And of course, Sherman had the best organized interior, crew could get in and out very quickly, which also increased survivability chance of its crew... which cannot be told about T34 where it took about 30-60 seconds to get out of the tank...

[JaM2013]

you are right, i made a mistake, it should be (45@60) then @30

ok, no problem!

so, using this method i get;
T-34
F 45@60 = 90@30 = 104
S 40@40 = 52,2@60 = 104,4 x 2 = 209
Total (104 + 209) / 3 = 104,33
GD = 104,33 x 1.3 / 10 = 14
GD 14

Tiger 1
F 100@10 = 101,5@30 = 117,25
S 80@60 = 160 x 2 = 320
Total (117,25 + 320) / 3 = 145,8
GD = 145,8 x 1.3 / 10 = 19
GD 19

Tiger 2
F 150@50 = 233,4@30 =269,5
S 80@25 = 88,3@60 = 176,5 x 2 = 353
Total (269,5 + 353) / 3 = 207,5
GD = 207,5 x 1.3 / 10 = 27
GD 27

1.3 is a multiplier i took to match (or try to) GD in the game

is this correct ?

sounds good, anyway if you would use also turret values and divide by 6, i think King Tiger value would be lower

[JaM2013]

Also it seems US Tank Destroyers are not impacted by the same, which is strange, as they were build on same chassis.. What surprises me most is that M18 has actually higher GD than M10, which is quite strange because M18 was very lightly armored and only offered protection against machine guns.. so GD 12 is quite a lot, especially if you compare it to Halftrack which was similarly armored yet its GD is much lower...

[JagdpanzerIV]

Also it seems US Tank Destroyers are not impacted by the same, which is strange, as they were build on same chassis.. What surprises me most is that M18 has actually higher GD than M10, which is quite strange because M18 was very lightly armored and only offered protection against machine guns.. so GD 12 is quite a lot, especially if you compare it to Halftrack which was similarly armored yet its GD is much lower...

the GD values in the game often make no sense at all. Either the game developers didn't know a hellcat had paper armor and was ultra fast, or didn't bother to look it up.

Su85 got 18, which is silly because its a turretless t34 with less armor on the sides because there is no slope. so it should be around 13.

the chaffee got the same gun as the sherman in 1944, HA should be around 10, not 7, it should move a bit more too, like movement 7, it was pretty fast. probably the best scout of late ww2.

overall the american TDs stats are too high. GD and HA both too high.

[JaM2013]

and of course, its beyond me why M4A3 has the same icon as M4A3(76)W.. 76W had T23 turret, which was quite different from original M4 turret used in M4A3..

Overall, US units are designed very badly, units are becoming available when they shouldn't (i guess they used adaptation dates, not the date when these vehicles actually arrived to Europe), there are tanks that are not really needed, and nobody will ever use them (M4A1), while some upgrade opportunities are completely ignored (HVVS suspension, Wet Stowage etc) Also, i think it wouldnt be bad to have the Patton's armor upgrade (added armor plate on hull front) versions available in 1945 (36 such tanks were issued to each division under his command)
And of course, 105mm version, which was a direct fire support tank, not an artillery piece.. (so range 0 in artillery mode, so it could support others)

[JaM2013]

oh, and one interesting detail about wet stowage - before it was issued, 60-80% of tanks that were penetrated, burned. With tanks using Wet Stowage, only 10-15% burned..

[JagdpanzerIV]

oh, and one interesting detail about wet stowage - before it was issued, 60-80% of tanks that were penetrated, burned. With tanks using Wet Stowage, only 10-15% burned..

they could implement this perhaps in prestige cost, replacing Shermans units would be less costly.

Shermans available dates really need to be reworked

[JaM2013]

isnt replacement cost handled through unit cost? maybe the new unit could be cheaper than the original.. Overall, one of the benefits of American tanks was they were available in large numbers, so their cost should be less impacting than cost of tanks for Germany.

[JagdpanzerIV]

sounds good, anyway if you would use also turret values and divide by 6, i think King Tiger value would be lower

question about turret, do you include the gun mantlet armor ?
example

tiger 2
front turret 180mm@9 and gun mantlet (saukopfblende) 100mm

tiger 1
front turret 100mm@8 and gun mantlet 100-110mm

[JagdpanzerIV]

isnt replacement cost handled through unit cost? maybe the new unit could be cheaper than the original.. Overall, one of the benefits of American tanks was they were available in large numbers, so their cost should be less impacting than cost of tanks for Germany.

the problem was more logistic and crew than available tanks or tds really.

Again, if germany had never been bombed, her factories and railways functional, and unlimited fuel and primary materials, they could actually have had a good fighting force and equal fighting chances.
at the end of the war, despite the heavy bombing, germany had increased the output of tanks and tds and airplanes, it just had no trained soldiers to give them to. Only elders and adolescents or foreigners were left mostly. most of their good soldiers, crew were either dead, missing or captured.

if we play the 3rd reich in a turn based scenario, and win each campaign, then cost of everything should go down drastically. So...pricing should be roughly equal for both sides at the beginning i think.

[JaM2013]

thats tough question because it depends on model.. for example, Tiger 1 has some areas of front turret overlapped by mantlet, but some not, so it actually has variable thickness,not homogeneous.. similarly Panther, had empty space behind the mantlet. at the other side Saukopfblende was overlapping, creating very thick part closer to gun (corners were thinner) so again, front turret armor was not homogeneous.

Thing is, Panzer Corps units stats are simple, one value covers everything, so i guess it doesnt matter that much, if you use the div/6 formula, frontal armor averages with the side armor anyway, so actual difference might be very low. or you could use average value perhaps (doing math for turret armor with and without mantlet, then get the value based on coverage - let say mantlet is 1/3 of front turret, therefore you take armor value for mantlet, ad 2x value for turret, then divide by 3 to get the average ) but maybe its too much math for very small difference.

Or maybe, it wouldnt be a bad idea trying different stats value scale, using greater values (whats the upper top? 64?)

[JaM2013]

oh, and when i'm at it, M12 GMC... what a fantasy unit... there were just 100 built through the war, intent was to replace it with M40, but it took time to develop so only one M40 was sent to Europe.. M12 only carried 10 rounds of 155mm ammo, yet in game this unit has 10 ammo, while other self propelled artillery pieces have a lot less (Hummel carried 18 rounds)...

THis arty is so overpowered, that as US you will never use M7 Priest... its completely outclassed with no benefit... it even carries less ammo...

If anything, M12 could be given range 4 get anti-bunker trait (they were used in direct fire against bunkers in Siegfried line) and just 2-3 ammo, as it carried the french 155mm GPF with range of 19.5km.. (German Hummel's 15cm sFH18 fired at max 13km)

[JagdpanzerIV]

yes, i am going thru the US campaign with, you guessed it...a bunch of 155mm way too easy.

yes, they calculated ammo for tanks this way in the game;
-for tanks and tds.
n. of ammo in ww2 / 10
-for arty
totally random i guess.

if towed artillery got 7 ammo, heck a spg with same caliber gun should carry less, it would only be fair.

[JaM2013]

maybe real ammo /5 would be good, this way, Hummel would have 18/5=3.6=4; Wespe 40/5=8; M12 10/5=2 and M7 Priest 69/5=12... so you would rather have 105mm M7 around in numbers and maybe only single M12 with range 4, to take out those pillboxes now and then... Overall, it would increase useability of 105mm arty quite a lot, and present the choice for player to either use lighter self-propeled arty, or towed heavy arty..

[JagdpanzerIV]

artillery overall should be nerfed, it should only or mostly serve to suppress an enemy unit, not destroy them. During ww2, artillery didn't have at his disposal guided shells, so destroying tanks was pure luck from a direct hit.

anyways once a unit is suppressed, its easy to wipe it out.

real ammo /5 sounds good to me.

the sturmpanzer 1 "bison" (arty) didn't carry any ammo, so how many should it have? (only 30 something were converted during ww2)
sIG33 II = 30
Grille = 15
Wespe = 32
Hummel = 18

how about the wurfrahmen 40 ? it was 6 single piece rocket, 3 on each side of the halftrack, so 6 i guess?

[JagdpanzerIV]

thats tough question because it depends on model.. for example, Tiger 1 has some areas of front turret overlapped by mantlet, but some not, so it actually has variable thickness,not homogeneous.. similarly Panther, had empty space behind the mantlet. at the other side Saukopfblende was overlapping, creating very thick part closer to gun (corners were thinner) so again, front turret armor was not homogeneous.

Thing is, Panzer Corps units stats are simple, one value covers everything, so i guess it doesnt matter that much, if you use the div/6 formula, frontal armor averages with the side armor anyway, so actual difference might be very low. or you could use average value perhaps (doing math for turret armor with and without mantlet, then get the value based on coverage - let say mantlet is 1/3 of front turret, therefore you take armor value for mantlet, ad 2x value for turret, then divide by 3 to get the average ) but maybe its too much math for very small difference.

Or maybe, it wouldnt be a bad idea trying different stats value scale, using greater values (whats the upper top? 64?)

when calculating (without mantlet) turrets, GD becomes;
T34 - 14 (-)
T1 - 21 (+2)
T2 - 28 (+1)

instead of
T34 - 14
T1 - 19
T2 - 27